Appeal No. 2002-2137
Application No. 08/772,738
disconnects without waiting for the processing result. Thus,
appellants assert that Hideaki fails to teach or suggest
1) a software application requesting input from a client and then
2) disconnecting itself from the client such that 3) it need not
wait for the requested input. Appellants further point out
(Brief, pages 4-5) that the examiner did not point to anything in
Gralla that would cure this deficiency.
We agree with appellants. Although we agree with the
examiner that Hideaki discloses clients, a server, and a
disconnect mechanism, we disagree that the disconnect mechanism
is disclosed as facilitating a request for input from the clients
such that the software application need not wait for input from
the clients. Hideaki explicitly discloses (translation, pages 1-
2) that the client device sends a request to the server, and
cutting off the connection between the client and the server such
that the client does not have to wait for the processing result.
This is the opposite of what is claimed. The claimed invention
has the software application requesting input from the web
browser and a disconnect mechanism such that the software
application need not wait for the requested input from the web
browser. Accordingly, as the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, we cannot sustain the rejection
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007